{"id":13759,"date":"2025-08-13T18:08:50","date_gmt":"2025-08-13T16:08:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/?p=13759"},"modified":"2025-08-28T18:09:24","modified_gmt":"2025-08-28T16:09:24","slug":"criminal-record-check","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/criminal-record-check\/","title":{"rendered":"Right to Litigation in Egypt Held Hostage to Criminal Record Clearance"},"content":{"rendered":"

As litigation costs rise and access to justice narrows, a new requirement has emerged\u2014one that threatens further legal isolation for vulnerable groups: a \u201ccriminal background check\u201d in exchange for a document from the court. A decision issued by the Public Prosecution on Sunday, July 13, and circulated on social media pages<\/a> affiliated with Justice Ministry employees, mandates that citizens undergo a criminal record clearance to access certain prosecution services\u2014most notably, obtaining official copies of case reports, court rulings, or registry-based certificates. The decision also requires the background check to verify whether the applicant has any outstanding financial claims before being granted the requested service.<\/p>\n

Human rights advocates and lawyers view this decision as a fresh violation of the right to access justice and information, arguing that these services are not necessarily connected to any criminal background, and that mandating a \u201ccriminal record check\u201d could complicate procedures for ordinary citizens.<\/p>\n

In this context, lawyer Khaled Al-Ansary told Zawia3<\/strong> that the decision undermines a fundamental constitutional right. \u201cThe right to litigation is one of the most important rights guaranteed by the Egyptian Constitution, local laws, and international conventions\u2014it is the foundation of societal stability, and it must not be restricted under any pretext,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

He added that tying access to legal services to a criminal background check constitutes an unjustified restriction on a basic right, asking: \u201cHow can it be acceptable for a citizen to go to the prosecution to file a grievance or a legal request, only to be arrested due to an in-absentia ruling?\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Al-Ansary pointed out that this practice is already being implemented in certain courts, such as the Economic Court, even in the absence of an official decision\u2014leading, in some cases, to citizens being denied their legal rights and facing legal consequences simply for requesting a judicial service.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

He also warned of the risks of centralizing procedures. \u201cIf a citizen undergoes a criminal check in Cairo and is found to have a ruling issued against him in Aswan, he is detained and transferred to the competent prosecution instead of being allowed to appeal from his place of residence\u2014which contradicts the principle of justice,\u201d he explained.<\/p>\n

Al-Ansary highlighted the technical flaws in criminal record systems, such as name similarities or delays in updating executed rulings, which could subject innocent individuals to serious legal consequences. For example, if a citizen receives an eviction ruling and attempts to appeal it, but is detained due to a name match with a convicted individual in another governorate, he could lose the opportunity to defend his right\u2014and the ruling could be executed against him without a chance to appeal.<\/p>\n

He affirmed that such restrictions could have severe social consequences, including growing feelings of injustice and increased crime rates as avenues for justice become blocked. Al-Ansary stressed that the Egyptian Constitution clearly protects this right, citing Articles 85, 92, and 97.<\/p>\n

\n

Don’t miss: Lawyers Revolt Against Soaring Court Fees in Egypt<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

When Procedure Conflicts with the Law: The Weakest Pay the Price<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n

The Egyptian Constitution, in Article 85, guarantees every individual the right to address public authorities in writing and with their signature. Article 92 affirms that rights and freedoms inherent to the citizen may not be suspended or diminished. Article 97 emphasizes that litigation is an inviolable and guaranteed right for all, obligating the state to bring judicial bodies closer to the people and ensure swift adjudication of cases. It also prohibits exceptional courts and shields no administrative act from judicial oversight.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Based on these guarantees, Aziza El-Tawil, a lawyer at the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, believes the decision \u201cconstitutes a clear violation of the principle of equal opportunity and the right to access justice.\u201d She told Zawia3<\/strong> that the decision is \u201cflawed and unconstitutional, as the core principle is to enable all citizens to exercise their rights without discrimination\u2014especially the right to litigation and law enforcement.\u201d She noted that the decision may deprive disadvantaged individuals from obtaining essential legal documents, merely due to the possibility of an in-absentia ruling against them\u2014rulings that are often issued without proper legal notification.<\/p>\n

El-Tawil added that many citizens are shocked to learn of cases filed against them\u2014cases of which they were never notified, from the initial summons to the final ruling\u2014due to flaws in the notification system, ultimately depriving them of their rights through procedures they were completely unaware of.<\/p>\n

She warned that the decision would disproportionately exclude the poorest and most marginalized groups, particularly those who cannot afford legal representation and are forced to handle their legal affairs independently. \u201cThese individuals could be barred from entering prosecution offices or courts, which\u2014under this decision\u2014become akin to ambushes, exposing them to arrest or transfer without any legal preparation,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

\n

El-Tawil stressed that the Public Prosecution, by virtue of its role, is not an entity for enforcing judgments\u2014it should be an instrument to uphold rights, not a barrier to them. She pointed out that the decision\u2019s impact extends to other judicial bodies, such as the State Council, where some litigants are prevented from enforcing rulings in their favor due to prior financial claims. They are often required to settle such claims before being allowed to appeal\u2014a practice that violates the principle of justice. She cited a case in which a court ordered someone\u2019s appointment to a position, but the ruling was not enforced because the individual had an old financial obligation, which had accrued interest amounting to millions of Egyptian pounds (hundreds of thousands of US dollars), making repayment a precondition for accessing his right.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

El-Tawil concluded her warning by highlighting the dangers of criminal background checks: arrest due to name similarities, transfer without the chance to consult a lawyer, or being forced to oppose a ruling without the ability to prepare a defense. \u201cThis type of restriction erodes citizens\u2019 trust in the justice system, deepens their sense of injustice and marginalization, and could ultimately lead to serious social repercussions that undermine stability and increase crime rates,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Criminal Record Clearance as an Additional Restriction on the Right to Litigation<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The recent decision by the Public Prosecution to impose a criminal background check as a prerequisite for accessing essential judicial services adds to the growing list of restrictions obstructing citizens\u2019 access to justice. This development comes as the Bar Association wages a \u201cpeaceful and legal battle\u201d against the sharp increases in litigation fees introduced by the Court of Appeals complex in recent months.<\/p>\n

Lawyer Yassar Saad argues that the decision, despite being justified as a measure to ensure enforcement of rulings, constitutes an unlawful extension of what is known as \u201csupplementary penalties\u201d\u2014which, under Egyptian criminal law, may only be imposed through a judicial ruling issued by a competent court. Speaking to Zawia3<\/strong>, he stressed that the Public Prosecution, as an investigative authority rather than a judicial body, is not authorized to issue decisions of a punitive or restrictive nature. \u201cThis type of penalty cannot be imposed by the Ministry of Justice, the prosecution, or any executive authority. Their sole mandate is investigation and referral\u2014not making decisions that restrict citizens or deprive them of judicial services,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Saad added that linking access to court rulings or the issuance of legal documents to undergoing a criminal background check essentially constitutes an additional punishment imposed by the state before the citizen is even given the chance to appeal or defend themselves. \u201cIf someone has an in-absentia ruling issued against them, it is in their interest to challenge it and seek a retrial\u2014so why treat them as a suspect from the outset?\u201d he asked.<\/p>\n

He pointed out that such practices contradict at least three constitutional articles and violate provisions of the Penal Code, which reserves the authority to impose penalties\u2014including supplementary ones\u2014exclusively to the judiciary.<\/p>\n

Saad warned that the stated goal\u2014ensuring enforcement of outstanding rulings\u2014masks a deeper dysfunction in the enforcement system, which has suffered a severe decline in performance since 2012. \u201cWhat\u2019s needed is not more restrictions, but the reactivation of the electronic linkage system between courts, which would ensure real-time updates to the rulings database, rather than subjecting citizens to unlawful arrests due to outdated information,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

This development coincides with a wave of rising judicial fees, sparking widespread concern among human rights advocates. Observers note that citizens are increasingly entangled in a complex web of burdens: exorbitant litigation fees that weigh heavily on them, and policing procedures that threaten their freedom in the event of unnotified in-absentia rulings. The requirement of criminal background checks adds yet another barrier to the simplest of services\u2014such as obtaining a copy of a court ruling or a certificate from the registry. As a result, citizens\u2014particularly those with limited income\u2014find themselves encircled by overlapping financial and administrative hurdles. Even if they wish to defend themselves, they may end up detained due to a name similarity or outdated case data, further eroding their trust in the justice system and discouraging them from asserting their legal rights.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

New decision mandates citizens to obtain a criminal record clearance to access judicial documents from the prosecution<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":13548,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[390],"tags":[],"kateb":[728],"class_list":["post-13759","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-human-rights","kateb-shimaa-hamdy"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/\u0641\u064a\u0634-\u0648\u062a\u0634\u0628\u064a\u0647-\u0627\u0644\u0645\u0648\u0642\u0639-\u0627\u0644\u0625\u0644\u0643\u062a\u0631\u0648\u0646\u064a.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13759","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13759"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13759\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13760,"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13759\/revisions\/13760"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13548"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13759"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13759"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13759"},{"taxonomy":"kateb","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kateb?post=13759"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}